Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Climate change consensus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Climate change consensus

    In another thread here, the conversation developed this way.

    Mountain Man said:
    I've heard it said that liberalism is a mental disease.
    I replied:
    Yep me too, from Epoetker and Darth E. Consider the sources. You realise you are engaging in the exact same behaviour you find so repugnant in 'liberals?'
    DE chimed in with
    We're hardly the first ones to postulate that scientific theory.
    Think about THAT for a while

    I responded
    Snort, 'scientific theory'.
    as you do.

    Mountain man said:
    It's as scientific as global warming.
    Think about THAT for a while.

    I said
    You mean like 95 of scientists working in the field accept that the evidence supports it?
    He said
    Given your user icon declaring yourself a "Proud Liberal", it figures you'd be dumb enough to fall for the "95% consensus" scam.

    Fact is, pretty much every claim of a scientific consensus with regards to global warming has been debunked, but seeing how you're a "Proud Liberal" (i.e. a low-information moron) I don't suppose you're actually aware of the facts.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...7-what-is.html
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...consensus-not/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/1...cientists-say/
    Then he said I was being 'typical' when I did not take the matter further ... in a thread about 'The Vagina Monologues'.

    So here we are. Let's test the claim that there is a high level of consensus among practicing climate scientists that climate change is real. If you want to, add in the further filter that there are anthropogenic contributions.

    I'm NOT a climate scientist. MY training is in physics and mathematics.

    Why is this article wrong?

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

  • #2
    Since when does science depend on consensus? At one time 99.99% of geologists thought plate tectonics was kook science.

    Comment


    • #3
      It doesn't, but it sure as heck means that claims like "Climate change does NOT appear to be the case" or "There aren't good reasons to believe climate change is occurring" are completely, utterly wrong.

      Similar to the evolution issue, one doesn't have to personally believe the theory, but it's a lie to claim that there's significant room to doubt it.
      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by square_peg View Post
        It doesn't, but it sure as heck means that claims like "Climate change does NOT appear to be the case" or "There aren't good reasons to believe climate change is occurring" are completely, utterly wrong.

        Similar to the evolution issue, one doesn't have to personally believe the theory, but it's a lie to claim that there's significant room to doubt it.
        LOL. so your answer is "it doesn't, but it does."

        Typical square_peg post.

        Comment


        • #5
          Derp. No, it's that you can try to, say, believe the universe is actually young by claiming that God created it with the appearance of age, but you CANNOT claim that science supports the idea of a young universe.

          Typical Sparko post.
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by square_peg View Post
            Derp. No, it's that you can try to, say, believe the universe is actually young by claiming that God created it with the appearance of age, but you CANNOT claim that science supports the idea of a young universe.

            Typical Sparko post.
            And where the heck did THAT come from? I was asking about whether consensus is what makes science true. You said:
            "It doesn't, but it sure as heck means that claims like 'Climate change does NOT appear to be the case' or 'There aren't good reasons to believe climate change is occurring' are completely, utterly wrong."

            So consensus doesn't make science true and yet it means that it is true? And then you change the topic? Are you on drugs?

            Comment


            • #7
              I didn't say that it IS true on the mere basis of consensus, I just said that you CANNOT claim that climate change APPEARS to not be true.
              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                I didn't say that it IS true on the mere basis of consensus, I just said that you CANNOT claim that climate change APPEARS to not be true.
                If you can't use consensus to claim that AGW science is true, then of course you can't use consensus to claim the opposite. Science is not based on popularity.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  If you can't use consensus to claim that AGW science is true, then of course you can't use consensus to claim the opposite. Science is not based on popularity.
                  For someone who isn't a scientist though, couldn't we say that, given the general consensus by scientists, its not at all unreasonable for the non-scientist to believe that the theory is more probable than not? I think, for instance, of the historicity for Jesus. The mythicist view among historians is extremely fringe. Just because the historicist view is much more widely accepted does not make that view automatically correct, but for the non-historian, its not at all unreasonable to assume that the consensus view likely has more going for it. The lack of expert support for the mythicist view seems telling.

                  The whole climate change debate doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me really. Its like that common core math issue that was brought up earlier. Its annoying to hear about it all the time, and I don't really know or care that much who is right, but it seems like the only reason people debate it has to do with ulterior political motivations that has little to do with the actual science.

                  I mean, when I was a teen, global warming and holes in the ozone layer were hot topics that were laid on us, and like overpopulation, and thermal nuclear war, we were told that it was a heavy burden us youngins were just going to have to bare and there was nothing we could really do about it except be afraid. Then some time in the early 90s they stopped talking about it, and life went on as normal, and no one cared, and then Al Gore came out with that movie, and everyone got all stirred up about it again, and for some reason it became a political issue where people on the left were for it, and people on the right were against it. I think both sides are pretty silly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Since when does science depend on consensus? At one time 99.99% of geologists thought plate tectonics was kook science.
                    At one time, very few geologists accepted plate tectonics. At one time, very few climatologists accepted global warming.

                    Then the evidence came in, which is what scientists use to weigh scientific arguments.

                    While science doesn't depend on consensus, public perceptions of scientific positions by non-scientists should. Yet in this case, as in the cases for opponents of evolution and the accepted age of the earth, a vocal minority taken almost exclusively from the same pool of religiously and ideologically-motivated naysayers continue to claim that scientists do not know their science, and that the evidence supporting their positions does not exist.

                    While scientific consensus apart from evidence says very little, religious consensus in opposition to the science, and in denial of the evidence ... says quite a bit.

                    As much as I appreciate my Christian friends and relatives, their tacit and occasionally active support for these disinformation campaigns is a deal-killer for any possible personal conversion to their faith. If I can't trust them to defend what is true and oppose what is false in the things I can verify, I cannot trust them to defend truth and oppose untruth in the things I cannot.

                    As ever, Jesse

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      For someone who isn't a scientist though, couldn't we say that, given the general consensus by scientists, its not at all unreasonable for the non-scientist to believe that the theory is more probable than not? I think, for instance, of the historicity for Jesus. The mythicist view among historians is extremely fringe. Just because the historicist view is much more widely accepted does not make that view automatically correct, but for the non-historian, its not at all unreasonable to assume that the consensus view likely has more going for it. The lack of expert support for the mythicist view seems telling.

                      The whole climate change debate doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me really. Its like that common core math issue that was brought up earlier. Its annoying to hear about it all the time, and I don't really know or care that much who is right, but it seems like the only reason people debate it has to do with ulterior political motivations that has little to do with the actual science.

                      I mean, when I was a teen, global warming and holes in the ozone layer were hot topics that were laid on us, and like overpopulation, and thermal nuclear war, we were told that it was a heavy burden us youngins were just going to have to bare and there was nothing we could really do about it except be afraid. Then some time in the early 90s they stopped talking about it, and life went on as normal, and no one cared, and then Al Gore came out with that movie, and everyone got all stirred up about it again, and for some reason it became a political issue where people on the left were for it, and people on the right were against it. I think both sides are pretty silly.
                      If we are talking about historical events involving people and actions, it becomes much harder to reproduce any experimental data, or to see what exactly happened. So you end up relying on conjecture, logic, some forensics, and opinions.

                      But that is not pure science. Climate scientists should be able to prove their claims using actual measurements and experiments and predictions. Yet everything they have claimed in the last 40 years has basically not happened. Relying on consensus on such a topic is basically not very useful. There could be many reasons for a consensus: It is the popular view and if you go against it you might not get a job in the field, or you might be ostracized. Funding is easier to obtain on such a political topic too. Pretty easy to get money to try to save the world from global warming than to do research that shows that there is no man-made global warming.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        At one time, very few geologists accepted plate tectonics. At one time, very few climatologists accepted global warming.

                        Then the evidence came in, which is what scientists use to weigh scientific arguments.

                        While science doesn't depend on consensus, public perceptions of scientific positions by non-scientists should. Yet in this case, as in the cases for opponents of evolution and the accepted age of the earth, a vocal minority taken almost exclusively from the same pool of religiously and ideologically-motivated naysayers continue to claim that scientists do not know their science, and that the evidence supporting their positions does not exist.

                        While scientific consensus apart from evidence says very little, religious consensus in opposition to the science, and in denial of the evidence ... says quite a bit.

                        As much as I appreciate my Christian friends and relatives, their tacit and occasionally active support for these disinformation campaigns is a deal-killer for any possible personal conversion to their faith. If I can't trust them to defend what is true and oppose what is false in the things I can verify, I cannot trust them to defend truth and oppose untruth in the things I cannot.

                        As ever, Jesse

                        Yeah I guess you are right. I remember back when we had polar ice caps and New York city wasn't under 20 feet of water, and Canada didn't have palm trees. I guess those climatologists really knew what they were talking about.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yeah I guess you are right. I remember back when we had polar ice caps and New York city wasn't under 20 feet of water, and Canada didn't have palm trees. I guess those climatologists really knew what they were talking about.
                          I remember when Exxon wasn't trying to open up oil resources in the arctic ocean and the US Military wasn't putting out reports about national security threats due to climate change.

                          Damn those liberals.

                          And I remember when Christians were at the forefront of checking scientific facts against their ideological positions.

                          I've read the IPCC reports, Sparkly. While I don't know where you got those weird exaggerations, I do know where you didn't.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Yeah I guess you are right. I remember back when we had polar ice caps and New York city wasn't under 20 feet of water, and Canada didn't have palm trees. I guess those climatologists really knew what they were talking about.
                            Or, like when I was a kid, they were saying that by now we would need special suits just to go outside because of the ozone layer being lost(this claim was from videos played during our science lessons). Not too long before then there were claims of a coming ice age.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                              At one time, very few geologists accepted plate tectonics. At one time, very few climatologists accepted global warming.

                              Then the evidence came in, which is what scientists use to weigh scientific arguments.

                              While science doesn't depend on consensus, public perceptions of scientific positions by non-scientists should. Yet in this case, as in the cases for opponents of evolution and the accepted age of the earth, a vocal minority taken almost exclusively from the same pool of religiously and ideologically-motivated naysayers continue to claim that scientists do not know their science, and that the evidence supporting their positions does not exist.

                              While scientific consensus apart from evidence says very little, religious consensus in opposition to the science, and in denial of the evidence ... says quite a bit.

                              As much as I appreciate my Christian friends and relatives, their tacit and occasionally active support for these disinformation campaigns is a deal-killer for any possible personal conversion to their faith. If I can't trust them to defend what is true and oppose what is false in the things I can verify, I cannot trust them to defend truth and oppose untruth in the things I cannot.

                              As ever, Jesse
                              This isn't a religious issue, it's a political one. Christian ≠ Republican.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              3 responses
                              31 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Christianbookworm  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X